|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus? | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days)  Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Jaywill writes:
With pleasure. Huntard, Please answer me these questions:
When opening the New Testament to read why should distrust and skepticism be the default attitude?
Perhaps not distrust, but ANY historical document (or any other claim for that matter) should be examined with scepticism. Why? because if we don't, then how are we to determine which of these is correct? If we accept them at face value, why do we accept the Bible, yet not the Koran, for example.
I mean why should I approach the account about Jesus Christ from the default assumption that a lie is being told or a that someone/s are trying to deceive me?
Not that they are trying to deceive you as such, more that when no supporting evidence is existing for the claims made, how reliable are those claims? Again, why then accept the Bible's claims as true while rejecting the Edda (norse mythology) as false?
Why should distrust and skepticism be the initial attitude from which one should analyze all that is being read in the Gospels?
Scepticism should be the default position when reading ANYTHING. Let's say you have two claims. In one text it says someone was a worshipper of god, in the other it says he only worshipped satan. Now, without evidence, and accepting them both to be true, how do we proceed form here? Now, say we find a church built by this person, and he has dedicated it to god, then we can begin to assume that he probably didn't worship satan, but god instead, and the one text becomes more credible on this point. I hope I made it clear. If not, feel free to ask some more. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello again Jaywill, another good post I see.
jaywill writes:
nothing except maths can ever be proven.
That's what you were told and which you cannot prove. You don't know it to be a fact.
No, I don't.
You're groundless claim to possess "the fact" that the disciples didn't write the Gospels is weak.
As it turns out, it is.
Besides it is obvious that "disciples" wrote the Gospels. If not Matthew was the author of Matthew, it should be obvious that a DISCIPLE wrote it.
Obvious maybe not, but probable, yes.
Maybe you don't know the difference between disciple and apostle.
I do, but I mixed them up. I retract the statement that a disciple didn't write the gospel, it is likely one did. This doesn't mean it's true though.
Maybe what you mean to say is that the Apostle Matthew, for example, did not write Matthew.
Yes, that's what I meant, thanks for pointing out my mistake. Now, on what do I base this? On the fact that most scholars that studied the gospels come to the conclusion that Matthew was written somewhere between AD 70 and 100, Matthew would likely be dead then.
Well scholars a whole lot closer to the writing of Matthew than you here, 2000 plus years latter, believed that Matthew wrote Matthew.
A belief is not evidence though.
One of the indications that Matthew wrote Matthew is found in Matt. 10:2-5.
Not evidence that he wrote it though, again, if we take even AD 70 as the date, Matthew would still likely be dead.
"And the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananeaean, and Judas Isacariot, who also betrayed Him. These twelve Jesus sent forth, charging them ..." (Matt. 10:2-5a)
This is Matthew's list of the twelve apostles. And why do I say it evidences Matthew as the author? Because if you compare the list of apostles to how they are mentioned in Mark and Luke you find the order changed to list Matthew before Thomas -(Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15). The writer of Matthew in humility listed himself second rather than first. Jesus sent the apostles out in teams. Probably each team had a senior and a junior member. Matthew, in his humility, put his own name AFTER his junior partner Thomas. Jesus had taught them to avoid ambition for position and rivalry. The effect of that teaching is seen in the way the author of Matthew listed himself among the apostles. The other listings recognize that Matthew was the senior team member between Matthew and Thomas. No problem. I am neither disappointed that you reject it. Hey, that's part of the business. We're use to stubborness.
Indeed we are. 
Maybe someone reading along did get some benefit from my labors.
unless they already believed it, I doubt it, but hey, to each his own.
Just on your say so ?
As opposed to your say so? Why should anyone believe what you say, yet disregard what I say?
While you're at it learn that apostles are disciples and followers who are not apostles are also disciples.
Yes, that was a bit stupid of me.
Should I expect that someone apparently loose or sloppy about the terms can be trusted to offer a more accurate reconstruction of the NT document authorship?
If a reasonable explanation can be found, with equal evidence, sure why not? Of course, since there is no evidence for either of our statements, they're both equally valid.
Plausible but more impressive to me as a paranoid conspiracy theory.
Of course. I didn't expect you to take it for granted, neither should you expect me to take anything you've said for granted either. Unless. of course, you can provide evidence.
And your addition "We'll all have a good life when we die" tells me more about your own superfiscial concepts about a heavenly afterlife rather than the biblical resurrection which Jesus taught.
So, heaven's not pleasant at all? Or am I missing something here? Please explain it to me.
Are you reading your own concepts into the Bible and taking them for the attitude of the disciples?
Are you? I'm offering a reasonable explanation for the way the Bible is written.
"We'll have a good life WHEN WE DIE."
How about "after we die and go to heaven" then?
They were not expecting to have a good life when they died. They were expecting live until Jesus returned or to be resurrected should He delay His return until after their lifetime.
In the mean time, they'd be up in heaven lounging with god, wouldn't they? So don't tell me they saw that as such a terrible thing.
There is nothing suggesting that Jesus wanted the disciples to BE inept.
Nor did I say he did. I said he didn't care either way. You're great at life, cool, you completely suck at it, cool too.
He told them to be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.
Yet they still portray the apostles as "inept" (your words by the way)
Where's His teaching for them to be or remain inept?
Nowhere, and I didn't say that. See above.
I think you are so paranoid that someone has out to pull the wool over your eyes that regard all the evidence I presented as purposeful conspiracy.
Judging by your reactions to me, it's the other way around. I simply offer a plausible explanation. Oh, and you didn't present evidence. You presented your view.
Bluntly speaking, I think that is stupid.
Why is offering a plausible explanation stupid? You have offered just as much evidence for your view as I have, so our proposals are equal.
With a fertile imagination and commitment to paranoia, sure, I expect you could concoct some alternative plausible explanation.
With a fertile imagination and commitment to blind faith, sure, I expect you could concoct some alternative plausible explanation. When talking about real, empirical evidence however, you haven't presented any yet.
So they concocted a not so perfect Man who was a perfect sinless sacrifice?
You said they did, don't put those words in my mouth. Form your post:
quote:How is a perfect man put in a bad light? if he's perfect there's nothing to put in a bad light, now is there? I simply offered a plausible explanation for why they did as you asserted. Peter said that He "committed no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth" (1 Peter 2:22). Where's the less than perfect God-man there?
I don't know, I never said he wasn't a perfect god man. You said they put him in a bad light.
John records that Pilate could find no fault in Him (John 18:38). Where's the less than perfect God-man there ? If John wanted to portray Him as less than perfect why did he record that Pontius Pilate knew that he was condemning a perfectly innocent man?
YOU said they did, not me. I offered an explanation as to why they would do this. And now you're saying I said they made him less perfect? I NEVER said that, YOU did.
"Maybe he wanted to envoke our sympathy" will be your next conspiratorial rational?
Sympathy for what? I don't think Jesus had need for sympathy. I merely offered a plausible explanation as to why they would put him in a bad light, as YOU asserted.
I would suggest that you actually read the Gospels for yourself rather than pour over skeptical books and websites ABOUT the Gospel.
This might surprise you, but I read the gospel, though admittedly a long time ago. So forgive me if my knowledge is a bit rusty. Also, I got taught the stories of the gospel during my first school years, seeing as I went to a Roman Catholic school form age 4 to 12. We even had our local pastor come over to the school to talk to us about the gospel and the Christian religion.
You do give me that impression that you are gullible and running on second and third hand skeptical oopinions of the Gospels.
Asking for evidence for claims made in the gospel is being gullible? I'd say taking them for granted without any evidence is being gullible. How can you equate asking for support for the claims to being gullible?
It is doubtful that imperfect people such as the disciples, would convincingly make up an absolutely perfect person?
According to you, they didn't. When I offer an explanation as to why they didn't, you do a 360 and claim I said he wasn't perfect. I never did, you did.
It is more ridiculous of you to assume that they started with a perfect person and concocted errors and faults to attribute Him to make Him more believable.
YOU said:
quote:I gave an explanation for that. I never claimed he wasn't perfect, you did. "Hey, John this is too perfect. Let's make up a weakness here and there so that this character doesn't come off as too perfect. Do you have some good bloopers we can put into His mouth?"
Perhaps it went that way, if what you said about it is true.
On your say so, with no submitted evidence?
Why not on MY say so, when we have to accept YOUR say so? You didn't offer any evidence either. You offered your explanation, as did I.
Seems to me that you are the one commiting all the phony authoritative pronouncements that you want to accuse the Gospel writers of.
I'm offering explanations as to why they would've written it as they did. As are you. You said you wanted to offer evidence, you haven't yet.
I think you are telling me more about your own suspicious mistrust of God's word.
There's NO evidence that it actually IS god's word.
Are you suggesting that they all had a collective group hallucination at the same time?
The writers of the gospels never saw this. It could be the apostle's lied about it, and it got recorded from there. If you have evidence it is true, offer it up, and I will retract my statements, until then, they stand.
They all at the same time had a group hallucination of a resurrected Jesus?
NONE of the gospel writers saw it. So NO, they didn't have a group hallucination. They were lied to.
The Apostle Peter says that he and others were eyewitness. He says that they were not following cleverly devised myths.
Wrong. The writers of the gospels say Peter said this. There is no evidence he did, nor is there evidence he actually saw this.
You are saying that they did follow clevery devised myths and that the writers were not eyewitnesses.
Yes. Most scholars will agree with me on the not being eyewitnesses part.
But I don't find your reasons to state this more credible than the Gospel record.
It is just as credible, as we both offer the same amount of evidence, none.
But they are cleverly devised rationals and excuses.
They are reasonable explanations for the actions of the gospel writers, with just as much support as the gospels themselves. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
jaywill writes:
Like the innocent ones? There are a few criminals behind bars that might beg to differ with you. I meant that nothing can ever be proven to 100%. Except in maths. I just don't like using the word proof. I use evidence instead. As do courts by the way. They see something as proven beyond reasonable doubt, not as 100% proven. But anyway, care to give your thoughts on the rest of my reply? I don't think disagreeing over the use of a word will get us anywhere, so fine, if you want to use proof for it, ok go ahead, I won't whine about it. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
